Appeal of Arbitration Denial in Coinbase Dogecoin Contest Dispute
Coinbase Inc. was unable to convince the Ninth Circuit to reverse a ruling that it could not force consumers to arbitrate claims concerning entry requirements for a Dogecoin sweepstakes program. Four consumers, David Suski, Jaimee Martin, Jonas Calsbeek, and Thomas Maher, alleged that Coinbase had unlawfully failed to disclose that entrants did not have to buy or sell the cryptocurrency to enter the contest. The US District Court for the Northern District of California allowed the consumer deception claims to move forward in January and stated that the plaintiffs could sue in court. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision in December and ruled that the plaintiffs could not be forced to arbitrate their claims. Coinbase had argued that the consumers had agreed to arbitration when they accepted the terms and conditions of the sweepstakes program. However, the court found that the terms and conditions did not mention arbitration and the consumers had not agreed to it. The court also noted that Coinbase had not raised the arbitration argument in district court and it was too late to do so on appeal. The ruling allows the plaintiffs to continue their lawsuit in court.
About The Author
